本研究旨在分析國民中學自然科學教科書中的科學本質內容。研究對象為111學年度國民中學三大版本（南一、康軒、翰林）自然科學教科書。有關自然科學教科書包含的科學本質面向、呈現科學本質內容的頻率與情境，將採內容分析法進行分析。有關自然科學教科書中科學本質內容的正確性，則是透過比較「教科書所呈現的科學本質內容之意涵」與「Alshamrani（2008）針對其12個科學本質面向所做的描述」來進行分析。研究結果如下：
一、目前三個版本國中自然科學教科書中，有兩個版本包含十二個科學本質面向(主觀性、創造性、暫時性、社會文化鑲嵌性、定律和定理、實徵基礎、沒有普遍適用的方法、觀察和推論、持續探問中、科學家之間的合作、科學與技學、實驗方法)，有一個版本只有包含十一個科學本質面向（沒有包含第9個科學本質面向：「持續探問中」）。
二、目前國中自然科學教科書所包含的科學本質面向（即廣度），大致涵蓋十二年國民教育自然科學課綱所要求的科學本質學習表現，同時也涵蓋科學教育領域相關科學課程/標準文件所歸納，K-12科學課程應該納入或K-12師生應該了解的科學本質共識觀點。
三、目前國中自然科學教科書呈現科學本質內容的頻率（即每100頁課文呈現科學本質內容的筆數）介於15到19之間，與2005年美國最受教師廣泛採用的高中物理教科書《Conceptual Physics 10th》的頻率相近（16），不過目前三個版本國中自然科學教科書中，每個科學本質面向出現科學本質內容的筆數並不平衡，出現最多筆數的是「實徵基礎」面向（128筆），而最低筆數的是「持續探問中」面向（4筆）。
四、目前國中自然科學教科書呈現科學本質內容的情境以「課文」為主，其次是透過「插圖」，沒有任何科學本質內容是經由「表格」與「詞彙釋義表」兩個情境來呈現。
五、目前國中自然科學教科書中大部分的科學本質內容是正確的，錯誤的比例只有約4.7%，其中不正確的科學本質內容主要出現在「暫時性」、「定律和定理」與「沒有普遍適用的方法」等三個面向，這些面向似乎是教科書最難正確呈現的科學本質面向。
最後針對研究發現提出相關建議，作為自然科學教師、教科書編者、師資培育機構與未來研究的參考。

關鍵字：自然科學教科書、科學本質、內容分析法

This study aims to analyze the content of the nature of science (NOS) in junior high school science textbooks. The research subjects are the three major versions of junior high school science textbooks for the 111th academic year. Content analysis is used to analyze “NOS aspects in science textbooks”, “frequency of inclusion of NOS aspects in science textbooks”, “context for NOS inclusion in science textbooks”. However, the “accuracy of NOS inclusion in science textbooks” is analyzed by comparing "the meanings of the NOS content presented in science textbooks" with "the descriptions of 12 aspects of the nature of science in Alshamrani (2008)". The research results are as follows:
1.Two versions of current junior high school science textbooks contain 12 NOS aspects (subjectivity, creativity, tentativeness, sociocultural embeddedness, laws and theories, empirical basis, the absence of a universal step-wise scientific method, observations and inferences, questioning, scientists' cooperation, science and technology, experimental methods), while one version of current junior high school science textbooks only contains 11 NOS aspects (It does not include the “questioning” aspect).
2.The NOS aspects in current junior high school science textbooks almost cover the learning performance of the nature of science required by “the Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education”, and also cover the consensus views on the nature of science that should be included in K-12 science courses or that K-12 teachers and students should understand, summarized by relevant science curriculum/standard documents in the field of science education.
3.The frequency of inclusion of NOS aspects in current junior high school science textbooks (i.e., the rate of NOS content per 100 pages in each textbook) is between 15 and 19, which is similar to the frequency of the high school physics textbook "Conceptual Physics 10th" widely adopted by American teachers in 2005 (16). However, the number of times each aspect of the nature of science appears in current three versions of junior high school science textbooks is not balanced, with the most frequent being the "empirical basis" aspect (128 times), and the least frequent being the "questioning" aspect (4 times).
4.The context in which the current junior high school science textbooks present the content of the nature of science is mainly "Main Text", followed by "Figure ", and no content of the nature of science is presented through the two contexts of "table or chart" and "glossary".
5.Most of the content of the nature of science presented in current junior high school science textbooks is accurate, with inaccurate rate of only about 4.7%. The inaccurate content of the nature of science mainly appears in the three aspects of "tentativeness", "laws and theories", and "the absence of a universal step-wise scientific method", which seem to be the most difficult aspects of the nature of science to present accurately in textbooks.
Finally, relevant suggestions are made based on the research findings, which can be used as a reference for science teachers, textbook editors, teacher training institutions, and future research.

Keywords: science textbooks, nature of science, content analysis

摘要
Abstract
謝誌
目次
第壹章 緒論.......................................................1
第一節 研究背景與動機.............................................1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題.........................................3
第三節 名詞釋義...................................................3
第四節 研究範圍與限制.............................................5
第貳章 文獻探討..................................................7
第一節 科學本質的重要性與其意涵...................................7
第二節 科學課程納入科學本質的理由.................................9
第三節 科學本質與教學............................................11
第四節 科學本質的範疇............................................12
第五節 內容分析法................................................23
第六節 教科書分析................................................28
第參章 研究方法..................................................35
第一節 研究設計與架構............................................35
第二節 研究流程..................................................37
第三節 內容分析的步驟............................................39
第四節 研究對象..................................................41
第五節 研究工具..................................................41
第六節 信度及效度................................................46
第七節 資料處理..................................................49
第肆章 結果與討論第肆章 結果與討論...............................57
第一節 國中自然科學教科書中出現與理想指標相關的科學本質內容示例..57
第二節 目前國中自然科學教科書包含的科學本質面向..................80
第三節 目前國中自然科學教科書呈現科學本質內容的頻率..............80
第四節 目前國中自然科學教科書呈現科學本質內容的情境..............82
第五節 目前國中自然科學教科書呈現科學本質內容的正確性............84
第六節 綜合討論..................................................88
第伍章 結論與建議................................................95
第一節 結論......................................................95
第二節 建議......................................................96
參考文獻.........................................................97
表次
圖次

一、 中文部分
1. Fraenkel, Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H.（2013）。教育研究法 : 研究設計實務（楊孟麗, 謝水南譯；2版）。心理出版。（原著出版於2011）
2. 王千祈（2012）。探討科學本質融入科學史之研究：社會建構取向教學之成效（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學教育研究所。
3. 王靜如（2001）。小學教師科學本質概念及教學之研究。科學教育學刊，9（2），197-217
4. 王文科（2001）。教育研究法。五南。
5. 王石番（1989）。傳播內容分析法-理論與實證。幼獅文化。
6. 呂紹海、巫俊明（2008）。國小「自然與生活科技」教科書中科學史內容之分析。新竹教育大學教育學報，25（2），1-31。https://doi.org/10.7044/NHCUEA.200812.0001
7. 呂紹海（2007）。國小自然與生活科技教科書中科學史內容的分析研究。（未出版之碩士論文）。國立新竹教育大學數理研究所(自然科學教育組)。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/vr48zm
8. 巫俊明（1997）。歷史導向物理課程對學生科學本質的了解、科學態度、及物理學科成績之影響。物理教育，1（2），64-84。http://dx.doi.org/10.6212/CPE.1997.0102.04
9. 巫俊明（2002）。運用科學史增進學生對於科學本質的了解。國教世紀，199，61-68。
10. 林陳涌（1996）。「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊，4（1），31-58。http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/ceric/cjse/0401/indexc.htm
11. 林淑梤、葉辰楨、張文華、陳素芬（2012）。運用明示和暗示科學本質文本對七年級學生學習演化單元的效益。科學教育學刊，20（4），367-392。http://dx.doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2012.2004.04
12. 林淑梤、劉聖忠、黃茂在、陳素芬、張文華（2008）。運用科學史傳達科學本質之教學實務探討－以簡單機械單元為例。科學教育月刊（315），2-18。
13. 林聖晟（2021）。一位國中生物教師與臺灣及日本教科書互動之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學課程與教學研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/8w6t3h
14. 周淑卿（2008）。豈是「一本」能了？－教科書概念的重建。教科書研究，1（1），29-47。https://doi.org/10.6481/JTR.200806.0029
15. 周佩儀、鄭明長（2008）。教科書研究方法論之探究。課程與教育季刊，11（1），193-221。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.200801.0193
16. 邱明富、高慧蓮（2006）。科學史融入教學對國小學童科學本質觀影響之探究。科學教育學刊，1（2），163-187。
17. 南一書局（2022）。國民中學自然科學教科書（第一冊~第六冊）。南一書局。
18. 高慧蓮（2006）。九年一貫課程提升學生科學本質能力指標表現可行教學模組之開發研究。科學教育學刊，14（4），401-425。http://dx.doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2006.1404.02
19. 康軒書局（2022）。國民中學自然科學教科書（第一冊~第六冊）。康軒書局。
20. 許良榮（1994）。科學課文的特性與學習。科學教育月刊，170，23-36。 https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw//NclService/JournalContentDetail?SysId=A94011118
21. 教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。教育部。
22. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。教育部。
23. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校自然科學習領域。教育部。
24. 黃光雄、簡茂發（1991）。教育研究法，229-255。師大書苑。
25. 黃政傑（1998）。建立優良的教書審定制度。課程教學季刊，1（1），1-16。
26. 傅麗玉（2001）。兒童科技史：台灣兒童讀物中科技史材料之研究。科學教育學刊，9（4），417-434。http://dx.doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2001.0904.05
27. 歐用生（1994）。內容分析法。載於黃光雄、簡茂發主編，教育研究法，229-255。
28. 歐用生（2003）。課程典範再建構。麗文。
29. 楊孝濚（1989）。內容分析法-社會及行為科學研究法下冊。東華書局。
30. 楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園（1989）。社會及行為科學研究法下冊，809-831。東華書局。
31. 劉虹谷（2016）。高中物理教科書科學史內容分析（未出版之碩士論文）。國立東華大學教育與潛能開發學系。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/85wutq
32. 潘菁瑩（2010）。國中自然與生活科技教科書中科學史內容分析之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立新竹教育大學數理研究所(自然科學教育組)。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/wcen8b
33. 鄭淑妃、劉聖忠、段曉林（2005）。國小自然科教師觀與教學之個案研究。科學教育學刊，13（2），169-190。http://dx.doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2005.1302.03
34. 翰林書局（2022）。國民中學自然科學教科書（第一冊~第六冊）。翰林書局。
35. 魏明通（1997）。科學教育。五南。
36. 鍾聖校（2000）。自然與科技課程教材教法。五南。
二、西文部分
1.Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436. https://doi.org10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
2.Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of Science: A Critical Review of the Literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
3.Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., Zeineddin, A.A., Belarmino, J. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 82-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21339
4.Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A.-P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20226
5.Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: The results of a 3- year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653-680. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20159
6.American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php
8.Alshamrani, S. M. (2008). Context, accuracy, and level of inclusion of nature of science concepts in current high school physics textbooks. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arkansas]. Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3329145)
9.Armstrong, J.＆Bray, J. (1986). How can we improve textbooks? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED292208).
10.Bruckermann, T., Ochsen, F., & Mahler, D. (2018). Learning Opportunities in Biology Teacher Education Contribute to Understanding of Nature of Science. Education Sciences, 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030103
11.Bölsterli Bardy Katrin (2015). Checklist for Competence-Oriented Textbooks in Science. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(11), 1450-1454. doi: 10.12691/education-3-11-16.
12.Council of Ministers of Education (1996). Common framework of science learning outcomes K-12 (Draft). Victoria, BC, Ministry of Education, Skills and Training
13.Chua, J.X., Tan, A., & Ramnarain, U. (2018). Representation of NOS aspects across chapters in Singapore Grade 9 and 10 Biology textbooks: insights for improving NOS representation. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37, 259 - 278.
14.Chiappetta, E., & Fillman, D. (2007). Analysis of Five High School Biology Textbooks Used in the United States for Inclusion of the Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1847-1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601159407
15.Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (2004). Procedures for conducting content analysis of science textbook. Houston, TX: University of Houston, Department of Curriculum and Instruction.
16.Clough, M. (2000). The nature of science: Understanding how the game of science is played. The Clearing House, 74(1), 13-17.
17.Clough, M. (2006). Learners’ Responses to the Demands of Conceptual Change: Considerations for Effective Nature of Science Instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463-494. https://doi: 10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7
18.Cofré, H., Vergara, C., Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J., Santibáñez, D., Jiménez, J., & Yancovic, M. (2014). Improving Chilean In-service Elementary Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science using Self-contained NOS and Content-embedded Mini-courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(7), 759–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9399-7
19.Curriculum Corporation (1994). A statement of science for Australian schools: Ajointproject of the states, territories and the Commonwealth of Australia initiated by the Australian Education Council. Carlton, Victoria
20.DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meaning and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Education, 37, 582-601.
21.Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young People's Images Of Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
22.Duruk, U. (2020). Nature of science representations in scenarios created by prospective science teachers on socio-scientific issues. African Educational Research Journal, 8, 109-120.
23.Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science method course. Science & Education, 11(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1013054823482
24.Horgan, J. (1993). PROFILE: PAUL KARL FEYERABEND- The Worst Enemy of Science. Scientific American, 36-37.
25.Kimball, M. E. (1967–68). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660050204
26.Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
27.Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660060116
28.Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
30.Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2). https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/7602/5369
31.Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In book: Handbook of research on science education (pp.831-879). Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum. Editors: Abell, S.K and Lederman, N. G.
32.Lederman, N., Wade, P., & Bell, R. (2002). Assessing Understanding of the Nature of Science: A Historical Perspective. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (Vol. 7, pp. 331-350). Boston: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_21
33.Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71(5), 721-734. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710509
34.Lee, Y. H. (2007). How do the high school biology textbooks introduce the nature of science? [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston]. Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3289802).
35.Li, X., Tan, Z., Shen, J., Hu, W., Chen, Y., & Wang, J. (2020). Analysis of Five Junior High School Physics Textbooks Used in China for Representations of Nature of Science. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 833-844.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9713-z
36.McComas, W. F. (2005). Seeking NOS standards: What content consensus exists in popular books on the nature of science? In annual conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching meeting. Dallas, TX.
37.McComas, W., & Olson, J. (1998a). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (Vol. 5, pp. 41-52). New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1
38.McComas, W., Clough, M., & Almazroa, H. (1998b). The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education. In William F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1
39.McDonald, C. V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2017). Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks. In Christine V McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks: A Global Perspective (pp. 1-19). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650524-1
40.McDonald, C. V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2017). Where to From Here?. Implications and Future Directions for Research on Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks. In McDonald, C. V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (Eds.), Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks (pp. 215-231). Routledge
41.Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290407
42.National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
43.National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
44.National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
45.Neuman. (2014). Social research methods : qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th edition). Pearson.
46.Ramnarain, U. D., & Chanetsa, T. (2016). An analysis of South African Grade 9 natural sciences textbooks for their representation of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 922-933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1167985
47.Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the nature of science as a curriculum component. Curriculum Studies, 32, 403-419.
48.Rutledge, M. L. (2005). Making the Nature of Science RELEVANT: Effectiveness of an Activity That Stresses Critical Thinking Skills. The American Biology Teacher, 67(6), 329-333. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0329:MTNOSR]2.0.CO;2
49.Shamos, M. H. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
50.Sheu, J. J. (2002). A review for the evaluation of science textbooks in western countries. 教育科學期刊，2(1), 35-62. https://ir.lib.nchu.edu.tw/bitstream/11455/73757/1/82520-3.pdf
51.Smith, M., Lederman, N., Bell, R., McComas, W., & Clough, M. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1101-1103. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1101::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-V
52.Weiss, I. R. (1993). A Profile of Science and Mathematics Education in the United States. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 461).
53.Wimmer, R. & Dominick, J. (2011). Mass Media Research - An Introduction. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
54.Wong, S. S., Firestone, J. B., Ronduen, L. G., & Bang, E. (2016). Middle School Science and Mathematics Teachers' Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A One-Year Study on the Effects of Explicit and Reflective Online Instruction. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 469-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1991.tb12102.x
55.Wright, I. (1996). Critically thinking about the textbook. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 399 880).